Ceasefire ambiguities keep the region on edge - World - Al-Ahram Weekly

Al-Ahram Weekly

7 days ago

Is the ceasefire between Israel and Iran a genuine pulling back from the abyss or is it just a fragile truce in an ongoing conflict, asks Al-Ahram Weekly
The announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel by US President Donald Trump has stirred a complex mix of emotions among Iranians.
Though the guns have momentarily fallen silent after a 12-day confrontation, many Iranians view the development with cautious scepticism rather than unreserved relief. While war weariness is palpable, and no one desires prolonged bloodshed, there is widespread doubt that this ceasefire signals genuine peace.
Central to Iran's ambivalence is an entrenched distrust of both Israel and the US. For many, Trump's triumphant proclamation of peace feels performative, an assertion undermined by his administration's erratic Middle East policies and the conspicuous lack of clarity surrounding the ceasefire's terms.
The agreement's vagueness, its undefined enforcement mechanisms, and the opacity of its conditions all fuel suspicion. Is this a diplomatic breakthrough, or simply a strategic retreat, allowing both sides to regroup before the next confrontation?
Yet, even amid these doubts, there has emerged a quiet undercurrent of national pride. Many Iranians believe their country demonstrated admirable resilience, striking blows against Israel's infrastructure, economy, and military prestige. This narrative reinforces the conviction that Iran is no passive victim in this conflict but a formidable actor capable of exacting a heavy toll.
The ceasefire came as a surprising and unexpected American intervention just days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at an impending truce. It seems the three key players in this conflict, Israel, the US, and Iran, each saw value in de-escalation before the situation spiralled into a prolonged and costly military confrontation with unforeseeable consequences.
From Washington's perspective, the Trump administration believes it has achieved its objectives. On 13 June, it granted Netanyahu a green light to launch strikes against Iran, targeting high-ranking military officials, nuclear scientists, and key installations connected to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes.
This was a calculated move to bolster America's negotiating leverage in future talks with Tehran regarding its nuclear programme, ballistic missile programme, and regional policies. Subsequent US strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were meant to further pressure Iran into compliance.
Following these operations, Trump declared Iran's nuclear capabilities significantly degraded, warning that a refusal to negotiate would invite even harsher measures. He went so far as to threaten the elimination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggesting that an organised pressure campaign could precipitate the regime's collapse from within without the need for US ground forces.
This strategy, a form of surgical military intervention, avoids entangling America in another protracted Middle Eastern conflict while advancing political outcomes favourable to US interests. It narrowed the divisions within the Trump administration. It also served to unify Trump's electoral base, sparing him and Pentagon officials the spectre of internal divisions – a welcome source of relief.
For Netanyahu, however, the ceasefire arrived sooner than he and his government's hardliners had anticipated. Despite the severity of Israel's strikes, the effectiveness of US actions, particularly against Fordow, the cornerstone of Iran's nuclear programme, remains in doubt. Israel's subsequent unilateral strike on the facility suggests lingering scepticism.
For Israeli hawks, the confrontation has been nothing short of disastrous. Iran's robust retaliation dealt a severe blow to Israel's doctrine of 'strategic deterrence,' the bedrock of its national security doctrine.
This principle, which rests on the assumption that Israel's military might dissuades any adversary from attacking, was shattered in the 12-day war. Iran's strikes on military installations, research centres, and critical infrastructure inflicted substantial damage and sowed widespread panic, driving Israelis to flee in search of safety abroad.
Moreover, Netanyahu failed in his attempts to drag the US into open war or destabilise the Iranian regime. Far from collapsing, Tehran saw its populace rally in defiance. Ending hostilities under these terms amounts to a strategic defeat for Israel, and from here come the Netanyahu government's attempts to accuse Iran of violating the ceasefire to justify renewed aggression.
Yet, the most striking development came from Trump himself, who expressed dissatisfaction with both parties, particularly Israel. Before departing for the NATO Summit in The Hague, he told reporters that Israel 'unloaded' right after agreeing to the deal.
He warned Israel not to drop further bombs on Iran, posting on his social media account Truth Social , in all-capital letters, 'Israel. Do not drop those bombs. If you do it is a major violation. Bring your pilots home, now! Donald J. Trump, President of the United States.'
He also called Netanyahu to request him not to launch an attack on Iran, according to the website Axios. Netanyahu reportedly told Trump that he could not call off the operation but added that the planned attack would be significantly scaled back, targeting only a single site rather than multiple locations.
Beneath the surface, clearly, there are tensions between Trump and Netanyahu, reflecting the growing divide between them over the next course of action.
For Iran, at this stage of the conflict it appears to have secured significant strategic gains despite enduring substantial military and human losses. Iran has engaged Israel on an equal footing, delivering a clear message: it possesses the capability to inflict serious damage and strike critical targets deep within Israeli territory, notwithstanding Israel's sophisticated air-defence systems, including the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow missile shield.
From Tehran's perspective, while its nuclear facilities have sustained damage, none of it is deemed irreparable. Iran had pre-emptively relocated its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to a secure site ahead of the US strikes, and contrary to American claims most enrichment facilities remain intact.
Its missile programme also remains operational and potent, as evidenced by the recent barrage of missiles that have revealed vulnerabilities in the US-Israeli missile defence network.
A reformist Iranian politician closely aligned with President Masoud Pezeshkian's inner circle told Al-Ahram Weekly that the US and Israeli assumption that military aggression would sow panic among Iranians and compel Tehran to the negotiating table to surrender its nuclear and missile rights has already proven misguided.
'We are stronger today than we were 12 days ago,' he stated. 'We were not defeated; we delivered powerful blows to the enemy, who ultimately pleaded for a ceasefire. When negotiations resume, they must come to the table with due respect for the Iranian nation. We do not yield to threats, and we are not afraid of war when it comes to defending our rights.'
The truth is that achieving a ceasefire is the relatively easy part of ending a war. The real challenge lies in what comes next: the settlement negotiations.
Israel and its allies are expected to push Iran to completely halt uranium enrichment on its own soil and to accept limitations on its missile programme. However, Iran refused these demands before the war, so why would it accept them now?
As a result, we are likely to see months of complex negotiations involving the US, the European powers, and Iran, possibly with China and Russia also at the table, aimed at finding mutually acceptable compromises. The outcome of these talks will be pivotal in determining whether the Middle East descends into a wider regional conflict or moves towards a much-needed de-escalation.
It appears that pressure has begun on Iran to sit at the negotiating table, as France has called on Tehran to restart negotiations over its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, according to a Foreign Ministry statement.
'Iran must engage without delay in talks to reach a comprehensive agreement addressing all concerns about its nuclear and ballistic activities, as well as its destabilising actions,' the ministry said.
In a bid to revive diplomatic engagement, Rafael Grossi, head of the UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), revealed on Tuesday that he had reached out to Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi proposing high-level talks in the wake of the brokered ceasefire between Tehran and Israel.
He took to X to underscore the stakes, suggesting that renewed Iranian cooperation could pave the way for a 'resolution to the protracted dispute over the nation's nuclear ambitions.' His appeal signals a cautious yet pivotal opportunity for de-escalation.
Meanwhile, Iran has begun evaluating the damage to its nuclear programme following the Israeli and US strikes on key atomic sites, nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami said on Tuesday, according to state-run Mehr News Agency.
Eslami stated that contingency plans were in place to restore operations, emphasising that 'the goal is to avoid disruptions in production and services.'
Thus, the ceasefire is not a resolution but a respite or a window of opportunity. For some, it is a chance to consolidate domestic strength, reassess geopolitical strategies, and revive diplomacy. For others, it is merely the eye of the storm and a deceptive calm before hostilities resume.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 26 June, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Follow us on:
Facebook
Instagram
Whatsapp
Short link: